A creationist tends to take the view that "God" has control over everything. Ergo, no act is so stupid as to be life threatening, since "God" will surely save you.
I don't necessarily disagree with you...let's say that we're talking specifically about someone who believes in the Judeo-Christian God, as most Americans that I come across believe themselves to be followers of Him simply because they were are registered to vote (Republican, no doubt). I would say that most of these same people would believe that God is going to protect them and keep them from death and make them prosper no matter what they do. This is completely anti-Biblical, however. I believe, and the Bible would back me up, that God, for the most part, leaves us to our own devices unless we humble ourselves and ask for help/guidance/what-have-you.
Anyhow..not looking to stir up a hornet's nest - just wanted to expound on your point a bit.
Simply because you know the capital of Latvia and I don't doesn't mean I'm ignorant...Do I consider myself ignorant? Just because I'm uninterested in the internal politics of France doesn't make me ignorant. I can't know everything there is to know about everything.
Actually, according to the dictionary, that is the very definition of ignorance. You're right, you can't know everything, but the reason why I bring it up is because you made it seem like knowing who the prime minister of Japan is is, in some way, more important than knowing the capitol of a country. The fact is, everyone is ignorant about something...most things, in fact. Like you said, you can't know everything. This doesn't mean that we should resign ourselves to this and be content with the ignorance....but then I ask them whose the president of South Korea... I know whose the president of S. Korea... I also know whose the president of France...
What you're looking for is "who's", a contraction of "who" and "is". Anyhow, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm glad that you feel content knowing who is who in East Asian and European politics.
There are certain things, however, that people should know about the world, and I think that this is what the parent poster was talking about. I'm not sure if you reside in America or not, but there seems to be quite a trend of egocentricity being established. "The world revolves around me." Forget about quizzing your average high schooler about world affairs - try to see if they know what's going on in their own community. I'd be willing to bet that they're ignorant of that, as well. That is scary to me.
How many people do you know of who can go to the polls knowing exactly which issues are relevant and pressing in their community? How can we make decisions about our nation if we can't even decide what to do in our own town?
are you human or just a rat prancing across a keyboard? that was utter nonsense..
Re:Never write off Microsoft...
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 1
There was only one person who switched because of the performance difference.
That's a pretty damned ignorant thing to say. I was die-hard against Microsoft when I started using the internet. I used Netscape all the way and refused MSIE - until I saw it on a friend's computer. So I tried it out. It was cleaner, less clunky, rendered faster...it was WORLDS better.
you obviously can't be the only one in class who doesn't get to see it because of a PG-13 rating.
Actually, you (or your kids) can..it's called "not being a sheep".
I'm not saying that this argument is especially pertinent to Star Wars, but for most things, parents are too worried about trying to be "cool" for their kids. I'm not sure if this is reflective of the parents, themselves, being denied too much as children, or not being denied enough.
As I stroll through stores and see the parents will bending to every whim and desire their kids have it is so apparent that there is no such thing as "backbones" anymore. It's all about being cool, being your kids' friend, not their parent. You don't want your kids mad at you, do you? Sorry for the rant..
Kind of reminds me of a time when I was doing computer repair. I got a call from this guy whose computer wasn't turning on at all. I got there and the guy demonstrated to me how the computer wasn't turning on when he'd plug it in. He proceeded to take the power plug and jab it in and out of the electrical outlet very rapidly, much to my surprise. After doing this for about 10 seconds or so, he pulled it out for good, looked at me, and said, "See? Nothing's happening!" Suddenly, there was an intense arc of electricity between the plug and the outlet which, at that time, were about 2 feet away from each other. I don't even know how it's physically possible for this to happen, but I really didn't have to think to hard to realize that his computer was toast. Idiots are everywhere..
I registered a domain through a discount registrar a few years ago and then decided that I didn't want to renew it. However, the plan was set up to renew automatically and you were not able to change this via their web interface - you had to call their toll number. I tried to call their number and could never get through to anyone. I sent numerous email and never received a reply so, of course, they renewed the domain and charged my credit card.
I immediately called my credit card company to dispute the charge, telling them all of the measures that I took to try to stop the automatic renewal. Upon hearing my sob story, they credited my account. I got a letter in the mail from my credit card company about a month later stating that they had finally been able to contact the registrar, who simply stated that they had no idea that I wanted to cancel my account because they hadn't heard from me, but that they'd be glad to cancel it now - and keep my registration fee, of course. Of course, you realize, this made it into a case of their word against mine and, I have no doubt that all the credit card business the registrar does with them factored heavily on my credit card company's decision. Anyhow, my credit card company recharged me the amount plus an additional amount for filing a false claim. Oh, and I lost my domain registration anyhow...
Maybe I just had a bad credit card company, but I would hesitate before doing that again...I'll just cancel both accounts (credit card and registration) next time.
Would you like more? Actually..more specifically..how many examples would be enough? 10, 20, 40? There are plenty, but I doubt that any number that I gave you would change your mind.
Don't you see how the story evolved over time and people began to embellish?
I responded to another one of your errant posts earlier on in the thread. What you're saying here is that a story with a different focus constitutes embellishment. Have you ever found it interesting that there are four gospels and not one? Do you have any idea why? It's because each writer was focusing on different aspects of the story. Why would they do this? Simple - their audiences weren't the same.
Each Gospel has a basic set of facts - namely, that Jesus Christ is the son of God, who was sent to redeem humans by dying and then raising from the dead. That's the gist. What you are saying is that because the gospels don't have the same exact stories in the same exact orders that it completely invalidates everything. It is simply incorrect to assume that. If you take four people and have them observe a series of events in a person's life for three years, I would bet you a million dollars that there are going to be some differences. Some might observe things that were very factual. Some might only write down things that he/she felt would be relatable by their readers. Some might capture the feelings that the person experienced. It wouldn't make any sense to have the same story word for word four times in a row.
I am 100% sure that if Jesus were real and around today, he would be APPAULED at the state of what his teachings had become. He would also be appauled at the riches of the church, but that's a different matter, and one more akin to the root of the problem here; mans corruption.
AP-PAUL-ED? Is that a pun? Anyhow, Jesus might be appalled. I am curious though as to why you would think that if you think that his teachings are just a bunch of fables. Anyhow, the gospels clearly show that Jesus is a quite complicated entity. He was extremely upset with the money changers at the temple. I would relate this to Benny Hinn...every time I flip by his show on TBN I swear I think that I'm going to see God strike him down with lightning. In the same token, Jesus had extreme compassion on those whose heart was right. It didn't matter if they were successful (Levi, the tax collector) or not (the widow who donated her last shekel), if their hearts were following Him, then it was enough.
Have Jesus' teachings become corrupt? I would say in some cases yes..I would say in other cases no.
People who debate whether homosexuality is allowed because of interpretations of a 2000 year-old pass-me down collection of fables, translated through at least four languages are the morons. I would supercede this by saying that people who dwell too much on the subject of homosexuality and let this become a dividing point for them are the true morons..
Men at that didn't believe women had a place other than in the kitchen.
Simply not true...and if you had actually read the Bible (in particularly, the Gospels) you would have seen that this was not true.
From the Gospel of Luke:
"As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. 39She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. 40But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!"
41"Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, 42but only one thing is needed.[f] Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her." "
I mean, really, if all that the men were about were making sure that women stayed in the kitchen, wouldn't they have had a little bit more creativity here? Jesus would have told Martha that she was absolutely right and that Mary should get her lazy butt into the kitchen to help with preparing the food.
I agree with you on all of your points; there's just one problem - the people who need to take this advice probably don't read slashdot. That's just a guess...and I suppose that's the crux of the issue. Your average Joe wants all the benefits of using a computer (e.g. staying up to date on late breaking Hollywood gossip, checking e-mail, downloading programs to keep his/her system clock on time, watching play-by-play sportscasts via java applets) without really letting the computer rule their lives. Most people I know wouldn't consider themselves a "computer person" and, furthermore, they wouldn't want to. They don't want to have to keep up to date on the newest malware and how to prevent it, but they still want to be able to install the Jessica Simpson screensaver that came in through their e-mail account. It's quite a dichotomy when you think about it. Screw it - let's throw it all away and go back to hunting and gathering.:)
You were right about one thing in that the executee will not be able to commit any more crime. You were wrong about everything else, especially in calling the original poster's comment "stupid".
How exactly will a murderer, who is then executed, commit any more crime.
You're absolutely right - someone who is executed will not commit anymore crime. However, if this person murdered for a cause - especially one of religious meaning - then other followers of that cause will view him/her as a martyr. So, by killing that person you have created enemies who might go to even further lengths than their predecessor in order to requite him/her.
Nice attempt to use a quickly-becoming-cliche movie quote in order to 'correct' me...
However, I do not believe that I misused the word 'confer'. Among other things, confer means 'to invest with', as one could invest a statement with a meaning. The original poster was using a metaphor (actually a metaphorical adjective) - an expression that attempts to describe something not very well known by likening it to something else more commonly known. In doing this, the poster was investing or even infusing (and actually, in this case, confusing) his/her statement with a certain feeling or meaning about the subjects.
Normally I don't play grammar nazi on/. but in cases of hypocrisy I'll make an exception.
If we're going to get right down to it though, you might be quite the hypocrite, yourself. My argument wasn't with the poster's grammar, but about their selection of words. As anyone knows, grammar is primarily confined to syntax whereas in this case, I was clearly arguing semantics.
That said...my grammar can beat up your grammar! Too bad she's 94 and in a nursing home, though..
you know..it's really a matter of preference..hibernation is a very handy feature. It's a big advancement, however, as I mentioned in a previous post, software is a always considered "work in progress". The hibernation feature is great, but sometimes, with Windows XP you do need to reboot occasionally.
Also, with various updates and patches being the way that they are, it is necessary to reboot. This is something that Linux advocates have whined about for a very long time and, if you know anything about Microsoft's.NET certification for ISV's, then you know that it's an issue that is being addressed.
secondly, i wasn't trying to add weight to my argument by using the term idiot..a remark was made that was short-sighted and narrow-minded, and i was addressing that.
don't be an idiot..i live in california, land of already-high-and-increasing energy bills. i turn my desktop pc off at night. additionally, my main work computer is a laptop and i can't really leave that on all the time now, can i? which reminds me of a couple other big features standard in XP: hibernation and remote desktop
um, yes it was..if Windows XP was simply a "skinning" of Windows2k, why is there an option to go back to the traditional Windows feel? That would, I guess, make it exactly the same. No, there was a lot more than that:
1) Firewall 2) Enhanced driver support 3) Enhanced Stability 4) Improved boot times 5) Program recovery 6) Better/easier networking and the big one:
The first real OS that could be used for either home or office. People tried to use Windows 98 for their office and that didn't work very well. Windows 2000 is not really a great home PC (slow boot times, etc). That, in my opinion, is what made XP so big at the time.
"forget our track record, forget what we said before, and ignore everything happening on our desktop systems; our server r0x0rs!"
apparently you are ignoring everything happening on the desktop systems. If you haven't noticed, Windows XP SP2 is rather good. I just got in an argument with someone yesterday about this: when it comes to software development, you can't dwell in the past for TOO long..any software developer will tell you that a project is a continuous work in progress. There is a constant tug-of-war between meeting the deadlines and addressing the implementation of new features.
At it's time, Windows 95 was decent..a big change from what the public had seen before. Windows 98 was a big improvement over that. Windows 2000 was an even bigger improvement. Windows XP was even bigger than that. In retrospect, however, they are all looked back in with disdain. Why is this? Because Microsoft was trying to build an OS that was easy to use and maintain - something that only Mac has been able to do with OSX. Unfortunately, the human factor got in the way and started ruining the day for everyone in the form of virii, spyware, etc.
Since the commercial explosion of the internet (1998-2000) Microsoft recognized that there was a need for a change and they gradually started moving in that direction. It's a work in progress..you live and you learn..that's life. So don't judge them too harshly..they are starting to get the picture. If Microsoft was still hiding behind a product like Windows 98 and calling it safe, stable, and secure, then I could see where one might have some distrust.
Anyhow, bring on the "he's a microsoft fan-bois" comments..
You know, I start to read these posts and get very infuriated by 'kids nowadays'...the truth of the matter is that I did bad stuff back then too. My junior year of high school (1995) I was taking a class on "Death and Dying" (Catholic School) taught by the principal, who was a pompous ass. Every day he'd make us sit through these mind-numbing PowerPoint presentations as he'd drone on and on in the foreground. One day I noticed that, in the library, I could see every single computer on the network...even more, that I could actually see where the principal kept his powerpoint presentations...so I decided to 'spice' them up a little bit. I loved the look of surprise/terror on his face during the next class.
I was later almost kicked out of school for insulting the guy on the 11 o'clock news while ditching school to see the re-release of Star Wars.
Slashdot Mirror
A creationist tends to take the view that "God" has control over everything. Ergo, no act is so stupid as to be life threatening, since "God" will surely save you.
I don't necessarily disagree with you...let's say that we're talking specifically about someone who believes in the Judeo-Christian God, as most Americans that I come across believe themselves to be followers of Him simply because they were are registered to vote (Republican, no doubt). I would say that most of these same people would believe that God is going to protect them and keep them from death and make them prosper no matter what they do. This is completely anti-Biblical, however. I believe, and the Bible would back me up, that God, for the most part, leaves us to our own devices unless we humble ourselves and ask for help/guidance/what-have-you.
Anyhow..not looking to stir up a hornet's nest - just wanted to expound on your point a bit.
Simply because you know the capital of Latvia and I don't doesn't mean I'm ignorant...Do I consider myself ignorant? Just because I'm uninterested in the internal politics of France doesn't make me ignorant. I can't know everything there is to know about everything.
...but then I ask them whose the president of South Korea...
Actually, according to the dictionary, that is the very definition of ignorance. You're right, you can't know everything, but the reason why I bring it up is because you made it seem like knowing who the prime minister of Japan is is, in some way, more important than knowing the capitol of a country. The fact is, everyone is ignorant about something...most things, in fact. Like you said, you can't know everything. This doesn't mean that we should resign ourselves to this and be content with the ignorance.
I know whose the president of S. Korea...
I also know whose the president of France...
What you're looking for is "who's", a contraction of "who" and "is". Anyhow, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm glad that you feel content knowing who is who in East Asian and European politics.
There are certain things, however, that people should know about the world, and I think that this is what the parent poster was talking about. I'm not sure if you reside in America or not, but there seems to be quite a trend of egocentricity being established. "The world revolves around me." Forget about quizzing your average high schooler about world affairs - try to see if they know what's going on in their own community. I'd be willing to bet that they're ignorant of that, as well. That is scary to me.
How many people do you know of who can go to the polls knowing exactly which issues are relevant and pressing in their community? How can we make decisions about our nation if we can't even decide what to do in our own town?
are you human or just a rat prancing across a keyboard? that was utter nonsense..
There was only one person who switched because of the performance difference.
That's a pretty damned ignorant thing to say. I was die-hard against Microsoft when I started using the internet. I used Netscape all the way and refused MSIE - until I saw it on a friend's computer. So I tried it out. It was cleaner, less clunky, rendered faster...it was WORLDS better.
you obviously can't be the only one in class who doesn't get to see it because of a PG-13 rating.
Actually, you (or your kids) can..it's called "not being a sheep".
I'm not saying that this argument is especially pertinent to Star Wars, but for most things, parents are too worried about trying to be "cool" for their kids. I'm not sure if this is reflective of the parents, themselves, being denied too much as children, or not being denied enough.
As I stroll through stores and see the parents will bending to every whim and desire their kids have it is so apparent that there is no such thing as "backbones" anymore. It's all about being cool, being your kids' friend, not their parent. You don't want your kids mad at you, do you? Sorry for the rant..
Kind of reminds me of a time when I was doing computer repair. I got a call from this guy whose computer wasn't turning on at all. I got there and the guy demonstrated to me how the computer wasn't turning on when he'd plug it in. He proceeded to take the power plug and jab it in and out of the electrical outlet very rapidly, much to my surprise. After doing this for about 10 seconds or so, he pulled it out for good, looked at me, and said, "See? Nothing's happening!" Suddenly, there was an intense arc of electricity between the plug and the outlet which, at that time, were about 2 feet away from each other. I don't even know how it's physically possible for this to happen, but I really didn't have to think to hard to realize that his computer was toast. Idiots are everywhere..
too much work for $50
I registered a domain through a discount registrar a few years ago and then decided that I didn't want to renew it. However, the plan was set up to renew automatically and you were not able to change this via their web interface - you had to call their toll number. I tried to call their number and could never get through to anyone. I sent numerous email and never received a reply so, of course, they renewed the domain and charged my credit card.
I immediately called my credit card company to dispute the charge, telling them all of the measures that I took to try to stop the automatic renewal. Upon hearing my sob story, they credited my account. I got a letter in the mail from my credit card company about a month later stating that they had finally been able to contact the registrar, who simply stated that they had no idea that I wanted to cancel my account because they hadn't heard from me, but that they'd be glad to cancel it now - and keep my registration fee, of course. Of course, you realize, this made it into a case of their word against mine and, I have no doubt that all the credit card business the registrar does with them factored heavily on my credit card company's decision. Anyhow, my credit card company recharged me the amount plus an additional amount for filing a false claim. Oh, and I lost my domain registration anyhow...
Maybe I just had a bad credit card company, but I would hesitate before doing that again...I'll just cancel both accounts (credit card and registration) next time.
That's pretty weak though, just one example
Would you like more? Actually..more specifically..how many examples would be enough? 10, 20, 40? There are plenty, but I doubt that any number that I gave you would change your mind.
Don't you see how the story evolved over time and people began to embellish?
I responded to another one of your errant posts earlier on in the thread. What you're saying here is that a story with a different focus constitutes embellishment. Have you ever found it interesting that there are four gospels and not one? Do you have any idea why? It's because each writer was focusing on different aspects of the story. Why would they do this? Simple - their audiences weren't the same.
Each Gospel has a basic set of facts - namely, that Jesus Christ is the son of God, who was sent to redeem humans by dying and then raising from the dead. That's the gist. What you are saying is that because the gospels don't have the same exact stories in the same exact orders that it completely invalidates everything. It is simply incorrect to assume that. If you take four people and have them observe a series of events in a person's life for three years, I would bet you a million dollars that there are going to be some differences. Some might observe things that were very factual. Some might only write down things that he/she felt would be relatable by their readers. Some might capture the feelings that the person experienced. It wouldn't make any sense to have the same story word for word four times in a row.
I am 100% sure that if Jesus were real and around today, he would be APPAULED at the state of what his teachings had become. He would also be appauled at the riches of the church, but that's a different matter, and one more akin to the root of the problem here; mans corruption.
AP-PAUL-ED? Is that a pun? Anyhow, Jesus might be appalled. I am curious though as to why you would think that if you think that his teachings are just a bunch of fables. Anyhow, the gospels clearly show that Jesus is a quite complicated entity. He was extremely upset with the money changers at the temple. I would relate this to Benny Hinn...every time I flip by his show on TBN I swear I think that I'm going to see God strike him down with lightning. In the same token, Jesus had extreme compassion on those whose heart was right. It didn't matter if they were successful (Levi, the tax collector) or not (the widow who donated her last shekel), if their hearts were following Him, then it was enough.
Have Jesus' teachings become corrupt? I would say in some cases yes..I would say in other cases no.
People who debate whether homosexuality is allowed because of interpretations of a 2000 year-old pass-me down collection of fables, translated through at least four languages are the morons. I would supercede this by saying that people who dwell too much on the subject of homosexuality and let this become a dividing point for them are the true morons..
Men at that didn't believe women had a place other than in the kitchen.
Simply not true...and if you had actually read the Bible (in particularly, the Gospels) you would have seen that this was not true.
From the Gospel of Luke:
"As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. 39She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. 40But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!"
41"Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, 42but only one thing is needed.[f] Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her." "
I mean, really, if all that the men were about were making sure that women stayed in the kitchen, wouldn't they have had a little bit more creativity here? Jesus would have told Martha that she was absolutely right and that Mary should get her lazy butt into the kitchen to help with preparing the food.
I agree with you on all of your points; there's just one problem - the people who need to take this advice probably don't read slashdot. That's just a guess...and I suppose that's the crux of the issue. Your average Joe wants all the benefits of using a computer (e.g. staying up to date on late breaking Hollywood gossip, checking e-mail, downloading programs to keep his/her system clock on time, watching play-by-play sportscasts via java applets) without really letting the computer rule their lives. Most people I know wouldn't consider themselves a "computer person" and, furthermore, they wouldn't want to. They don't want to have to keep up to date on the newest malware and how to prevent it, but they still want to be able to install the Jessica Simpson screensaver that came in through their e-mail account. It's quite a dichotomy when you think about it. Screw it - let's throw it all away and go back to hunting and gathering. :)
if i had mod points, you'd get 'em. very clever.. :) of course, i'm married...
Hmm...should have clarified something..
You were right about one thing in that the executee will not be able to commit any more crime. You were wrong about everything else, especially in calling the original poster's comment "stupid".
How exactly will a murderer, who is then executed, commit any more crime.
You're absolutely right - someone who is executed will not commit anymore crime. However, if this person murdered for a cause - especially one of religious meaning - then other followers of that cause will view him/her as a martyr. So, by killing that person you have created enemies who might go to even further lengths than their predecessor in order to requite him/her.
The original poster was right and you were wrong.
Men are ALWAYS competitive...in pretty much everything in life...for their lifetime.
...this is a fairly basic inherit trate...
:)
As a man, I take serious offense to that! I am not competitive at all..
By the way, it's "inherent trait", you ignoramus! I'm so much better than you! Wait..who said that?
Hi, I'm with the "Wild Conjecture" Police...could you come with me, please? You're under arrest..
Nice attempt to use a quickly-becoming-cliche movie quote in order to 'correct' me...
/. but in cases of hypocrisy I'll make an exception.
:)
However, I do not believe that I misused the word 'confer'. Among other things, confer means 'to invest with', as one could invest a statement with a meaning. The original poster was using a metaphor (actually a metaphorical adjective) - an expression that attempts to describe something not very well known by likening it to something else more commonly known. In doing this, the poster was investing or even infusing (and actually, in this case, confusing) his/her statement with a certain feeling or meaning about the subjects.
Normally I don't play grammar nazi on
If we're going to get right down to it though, you might be quite the hypocrite, yourself. My argument wasn't with the poster's grammar, but about their selection of words. As anyone knows, grammar is primarily confined to syntax whereas in this case, I was clearly arguing semantics.
That said...my grammar can beat up your grammar! Too bad she's 94 and in a nursing home, though..
nyah nyah nyah..
It's all in good fun, right?
you know..it's really a matter of preference..hibernation is a very handy feature. It's a big advancement, however, as I mentioned in a previous post, software is a always considered "work in progress". The hibernation feature is great, but sometimes, with Windows XP you do need to reboot occasionally.
.NET certification for ISV's, then you know that it's an issue that is being addressed.
Also, with various updates and patches being the way that they are, it is necessary to reboot. This is something that Linux advocates have whined about for a very long time and, if you know anything about Microsoft's
secondly, i wasn't trying to add weight to my argument by using the term idiot..a remark was made that was short-sighted and narrow-minded, and i was addressing that.
don't be an idiot..i live in california, land of already-high-and-increasing energy bills. i turn my desktop pc off at night. additionally, my main work computer is a laptop and i can't really leave that on all the time now, can i? which reminds me of a couple other big features standard in XP: hibernation and remote desktop
um, yes it was..if Windows XP was simply a "skinning" of Windows2k, why is there an option to go back to the traditional Windows feel? That would, I guess, make it exactly the same. No, there was a lot more than that:
1) Firewall
2) Enhanced driver support
3) Enhanced Stability
4) Improved boot times
5) Program recovery
6) Better/easier networking
and the big one:
The first real OS that could be used for either home or office. People tried to use Windows 98 for their office and that didn't work very well. Windows 2000 is not really a great home PC (slow boot times, etc). That, in my opinion, is what made XP so big at the time.
"forget our track record, forget what we said before, and ignore everything happening on our desktop systems; our server r0x0rs!"
apparently you are ignoring everything happening on the desktop systems. If you haven't noticed, Windows XP SP2 is rather good. I just got in an argument with someone yesterday about this: when it comes to software development, you can't dwell in the past for TOO long..any software developer will tell you that a project is a continuous work in progress. There is a constant tug-of-war between meeting the deadlines and addressing the implementation of new features.
At it's time, Windows 95 was decent..a big change from what the public had seen before. Windows 98 was a big improvement over that. Windows 2000 was an even bigger improvement. Windows XP was even bigger than that. In retrospect, however, they are all looked back in with disdain. Why is this? Because Microsoft was trying to build an OS that was easy to use and maintain - something that only Mac has been able to do with OSX. Unfortunately, the human factor got in the way and started ruining the day for everyone in the form of virii, spyware, etc.
Since the commercial explosion of the internet (1998-2000) Microsoft recognized that there was a need for a change and they gradually started moving in that direction. It's a work in progress..you live and you learn..that's life. So don't judge them too harshly..they are starting to get the picture. If Microsoft was still hiding behind a product like Windows 98 and calling it safe, stable, and secure, then I could see where one might have some distrust.
Anyhow, bring on the "he's a microsoft fan-bois" comments..
You know, I start to read these posts and get very infuriated by 'kids nowadays'...the truth of the matter is that I did bad stuff back then too. My junior year of high school (1995) I was taking a class on "Death and Dying" (Catholic School) taught by the principal, who was a pompous ass. Every day he'd make us sit through these mind-numbing PowerPoint presentations as he'd drone on and on in the foreground. One day I noticed that, in the library, I could see every single computer on the network...even more, that I could actually see where the principal kept his powerpoint presentations...so I decided to 'spice' them up a little bit. I loved the look of surprise/terror on his face during the next class.
I was later almost kicked out of school for insulting the guy on the 11 o'clock news while ditching school to see the re-release of Star Wars.
'Course, I then remember how crappie the speakers were back then
Wait..your speakers were crappie? Was there too much bass?
get it? crappie is a fish..bass is a fish..
i know..i'm bad..
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings..